I posted a number of points and questions that you did not address or answer. I would really appreciate it if you would. I will simplify them for you below.

1. Why did you dismiss Bucky Ball's point as being "off-topic entirely"? In what way is pointing out the fear of hell as an example of the religious having death "nag" at them, unrelated to your statements?

2. Do you believe that believing in an afterlife stops death from "nagging at you"? If so, how do you account for the fear of hell so often present in the religious?

3. Do you consider being dead as being the same as being "forever unconscious? If so, how do you account for the fact that being unconscious requires a living being? Also, how do you account for the lack of consciousness demonstrable by individuals under certain conditions such as comas and anesthetic?

4. Do you consider Atheism a belief system? Why do you continue to refer to what Atheists "believe"? Do you mean to say that they accept scientific facts?

5. Why do you seem surprised that none of us share your belief in a higher power? Were you expecting Atheists to agree with you on that point?

(15-04-2014 01:24 PM)Leefboy Wrote: Yes... in a way. Think of it this way. Imagine this universe without conscious beings. Conscious beings never existed and will never exist. What is the universe then exactly? An eternal existence of dead matter that no one even knows about? Why does or should it exist at all?You can argue all day that the universe will still exist even if we never existed by pointing out "scientific" evidence of how consciousness is a direct byproduct of this "dead" matter but in the end that is a logical fallacy. You have to look at all this from YOUR perspective. If YOU were never conscious, there is absolutely no point for a reality to exist to YOU or to anyone else for that matter. The fact that you are conscious right now holds a much deeper significance than you think.

Here is a fact. The universe will continue to possess the quality of existence regardless of the presence or lack of conscious beings who experience it. The loss or gaining of consciousness has no physical effect whatsoever on its existence. In what way is this a logical fallacy?

You point out that this is all a matter of perspective, as if this were shocking news to even a small child. We all know that to the dead person, the universe seems to have ceased to exist. In his experience the universe has ended. This is illusory and is the result of the natural imperfection of perspective. All that is required to disprove this illusion is to have a second person witness the death of the first person and observe the universe continuing to exist. You are pointing out the obvious, and then using it as a tricky means of asserting some unsupported claims.

(15-04-2014 01:24 PM)Leefboy Wrote: I discredit science as an effective means to observe an OBJECTIVE universe for what it is because science observes the universe through the filter of the human brain. Humans see grass as green, but dogs may see it as red. So objectively, what is grass? If we want to know or observe something truly objectively, we cannot use science or our limited minds. In fact, the only thing we actually know as truth is the fact that our minds exist. So I base my observations on this fact alone. Of course science helps us understand the reality that we see and touch... it is not useless. We should always be striving to learn more through science. But when I'm talking about death and consciousness, I am literally throwing science out the window. It doesn't and will never apply here.

You "discredit" science? You are displaying arrogance that is very inappropriate. "The study of the universe" does not get debunked like a quack theory on the internet.

Why do you consider being scientific and thinking objectively as being mutually exclusive?

You stated that the main problem with science is its need to be filtered through our limited minds. In fact, you stated that in order to think objectively we cannot use our limited minds at all either. Did you not create this theory using your "limited mind"? If not, by what means have you managed to think all of this up and post it here? Please explain why your theory is not contaminated by your biased perspective? Also, please explain how it is possible to "think" objectively, a process which requires use of our "limited minds" without actually using our "limited minds".

You have repeatedly said that you require no evidence other than your word to assert whatever you please about consciousness and death. That being the case, please disprove my theory that consciousness ceases altogether at the point of death. I would present evidence, but given that science "will never apply here" I don't particularly feel the need.

(15-04-2014 01:24 PM)Leefboy Wrote: You claim that my reasoning is flawed so I'm going to assume you didn't actually understood what I was trying to say. I'm probably just bad at explaining things. This stuff seems ridiculous and hard to understand... I get it. It requires a whole book to explain it. Try looking up other people's thoughts on the matter of "universal consciousness." You'll probably get a better understanding.

Since assumptions and misconceptions seem to be distracting for you, let's return to some facts. I understood what you wrote exactly as you wrote it. Your thinking is factually flawed through a combination of what is known as a non-sequitor and other forms of fallacious logic. It is not difficult to understand your theory, but you are correct when you say it seems ridiculous.

Let's break your theory down step by step from the beginning.

1. Atheists view death as the end of everything.
2. Death can only be the end of everything if we possess a unique metaphysical quality such as a soul.
3. Death is the equivalent to being unconscious eternally.
4. Being unconscious eternally requires that we have been assigned a soul and thus an opportunity to experience life and then sleep eternally once again.
5. After death, consciousness lives on in some form.
6. After death, we become nothing.
7. We cannot experience as a nothing, therefore we may as well be anything conscious. We will be something conscious after death.
8. We are all experiencing the collective consciousness of the universe one being at a time.

If you think this is somehow a misrepresentation of your theory, please correct it. I gleaned what I could from your original post and did my very best to formulate it coherently. Here is my critique.

1. Number one is a blind assumption since it infers that all Atheists hold certain views identically.
2. The leap from 1 to 2 is a classic non-sequitor. There is no connection between viewing death as the end of everything and possessing an undefined metaphysical quality.
3. 3 is stated but not backed by any evidence. It is demonstrably false as has been pointed out several times by several posters.
4. The leap from 3 to 4 is another non-sequitor. There is no relation.
5. 5 is stated but not backed by any evidence. It is false by the definition of "consciousness".
6. 5 and 6 are contradictory. It is illogical to be nothing and also be conscious.
7. 7 is another non-sequitor. Furthermore it appears to be influenced by the emotions of the "objective" thinker. He does not appear to like the idea of nothing, therefore something.
8. 8 is another wild leaping non-sequitor.

Please either explain in detail why you are correct, or admit that you are wrong.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

Quote:Why do you consider your introductory paragraph to be irrelevant to your main point? What is the purpose of your introductory paragraph if not to introduce your main point?

The introduction isn't irrelevant. It's relevant in explaining my thought process. His response to it was irrelevant and off-topic entirely.

Quote:Are all human subjective experiences identical? Are they personal and unique? In what way is consciousness neither personal nor unique?

It's hard to explain this... but let's say there's two components to a human being. Let's call the first component his or her "ego", which is everything that makes that person unique. The second component is his or her "consciousness", or simply his capability to be aware of existence. Egos and subjective experiences are different. Consciousness is identical. Atheists believe that both are egos and consciousness will die. I'm arguing that while egos can die, consciousness can't. A physical reality can't exist without there being someone to perceive it. It's natural to think that it can, because we see people dying and the universe still spinning without them and we believe that those people are forever unconscious. But it's IMPOSSIBLE to be "forever unconscious" because reality DEPENDS on consciousness for it to exist. Before you argue against this, let me ask you... if you've never been born does the universe even exist? It simply doesn't no matter how you argue against it. This concept applies to death as well, since being dead is exactly the same thing as never having been born.

So consciousness does exist outside of our physical bodies. In fact, everything in the universe - time, space, and matter, all exist within consciousness, not the other way around. They simply wouldn't exist outside of consciousness. You have to stop thinking scientifically to understand this. Science is unreliable and we all know it can never explain everything in the universe. How can science explain infinity or where the matter from the big bang came from? I mean forget science, our minds can't even COMPREHEND what infinity or a causeless cause is, even though they have to exist in the physical universe.

Quote:Are you an Atheist? Why have you contradicted yourself? What does it mean to be "somewhere between Atheism and religion"? In what way are you neither religious nor non-religious?

How did I contradict myself? I was religious until I reasoned myself out of it. Then I became an atheist and then reasoned myself out of that too. I guess you can now call me "spiritual" because I don't believe that the universe is just random matter that somehow collided in a certain way to form conscious beings. I don't believe that death will be the end of my consciousness because that notion itself doesn't make any sense.

I don't believe in a personal God either. You and I both know that is a load of crap. I do believe in some kind of higher power though. How can you not? Life itself is a miracle and if you can't see that then this thread is pointless and won't go anywhere.

Quote:If you admit that factual science supports a loss of all consciousness at death, why are you arguing that that same consciousness continues beyond death? If your theory is not supported by any scientific evidence, why should anyone consider it fact?

Science supports the loss of consciousness of OUR BODY. This same consciousness doesn't continue... but your ability to be aware of existence will.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Reasoning and logic is my "evidence" because obviously none of this can actually be proven. I'm not trying to convert you into believing anything extraordinary. I just want to know if this makes sense to you or not. So stop asking for evidence. This either makes sense or it doesn't. I don't care if you believe it or not.

"I just want to know if this makes sense to you or not."
"I don't care if you believe it or not."

Quote:Yes... in a way. Think of it this way. Imagine this universe without conscious beings. Conscious beings never existed and will never exist. What is the universe then exactly? An eternal existence of dead matter that no one even knows about? Why does or should it exist at all? You can argue all day that the universe will still exist even if we never existed by pointing out "scientific" evidence of how consciousness is a direct byproduct of this "dead" matter but in the end that is a logical fallacy. You have to look at all this from YOUR perspective. If YOU were never conscious, there is absolutely no point for a reality to exist to YOU or to anyone else for that matter. The fact that you are conscious right now holds a much deeper significance than you think.

So if I'm understanding this, what you are asking me to believe is that nothing exists unless something, specifically a human, is around to experience it.

Did Jupiter exist before humans were able to look up into the sky and say "that big one there, we'll call that one Jupiter"?

Chicken, meet egg.

That's precisely what this moron is asserting. Funny how you, I , and the rest of the fucking universe didn't wink out the moment any of our friends, neighbors, or family members died.

(15-04-2014 08:15 AM)Leefboy Wrote: Why do you keep throwing insults? You can disagree with me and end it with that. Obviously I thought this through a lot before I posted this. I've BEEN an atheist before. There was a period of time in my life when I believed everything you believed. You clearly just don't understand what I'm trying to say. That's understandable. That is why I posted here because I knew I would get some resistance.

Consciousness DOES exist outside of our brain. There are plenty of scientists who agree with me, and they are not trolls. Skip to 6:00. This video somewhat explains it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIJHJzDQcRM

I don't expect you to change any of your beliefs. The best I can hope for is for you to acknowledge that there's SOME truth to all of this.

Sorry. I don't have time to suffer fools. I've had enough of them. You are one.
There is absolutely not a shred of truth in any of it. NONE. Asserting something does not make it true. There is no "consciousness outside a brain" and you cannot demonstrate there is, or in any way prove that nonsense. Atheism, is not a "belief". It's the ABSENCE of belief concerning a deity. You clearly have no clue what the definition of "unconsciousness" is. You have conflated and mistaken "unconsciousness" with no consciousness. If you put an "unconscious" person in an MRI or PET scan you would see a LOT of biological and chemical activity IN THE BRAIN. If you put a dead person in them, you would see NOTHING. No activity. You have attempted to redefine the word "unconscious" and conflate it with NO consciousness. You cannot provide a list of Neuro-scientists who buy into your bullshit. It makes not a bit of difference how long you have spent on this bullshit. It remains complete bullshit, AND you have provided not a shred of evidence for why or how it could be true. All you YouTube insane people are all the same. "Oh, oh, pay attention to ME. Look I have discovered something EVERYONE else on the fucking planet seems to have missed ... except ME". Yes indeed. You're special. Very very special.

There is no "absolute boundary" between life and non-life. It's all chemical reactions. Thus your definitional dualism is nonsense. Some complex chemical processes result in, (and as far as we know ONLY molecular level processes) result in cognition/consciousness. If you're trying to say there is no qualitative difference between electrons in orbit around a nucleus, and a thinking being, then your point is moot. Other than that, attempting to create a definitional boundary between consciousness and non-consciousness is irrelevant and meaningless. You clearly have not thought out the consequences of your unsupported assertions.

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.

(15-04-2014 08:15 AM)Leefboy Wrote: Why do you keep throwing insults? You can disagree with me and end it with that. Obviously I thought this through a lot before I posted this. I've BEEN an atheist before. There was a period of time in my life when I believed everything you believed. You clearly just don't understand what I'm trying to say. That's understandable. That is why I posted here because I knew I would get some resistance.

Consciousness DOES exist outside of our brain. There are plenty of scientists who agree with me, and they are not trolls. Skip to 6:00. This video somewhat explains it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIJHJzDQcRM

I don't expect you to change any of your beliefs. The best I can hope for is for you to acknowledge that there's SOME truth to all of this.

Sorry. I don't have time to suffer fools. I had enough of them. You are one.
There is absolutle not a shred of truth in any of it. NONE. Asserting something does not make it true. There is no "consciousness outside a brain" and you cannot demonstrate there is, or in any way prove that nonsense. Atheism, is not a "belief". It's the ABSENCE of belief concerning a deity. You clearly have no clue what the definition of "unconsciousness" is. You have conflated and mistaken "unconsciousness" with no consciousness. If you put an "unconscious" person in an MRI or PET scan you would see a LOT of biological and chemical activity IN THE BRAIN. If you put a dead person in them, you would see NOTHING. No activity. You have attempted to redefine the word "unconscious" and conflate it with NO consciousness. Yu cannot provide a list of Neuro-scientists who buy into your bullshit. It make not a bit of difference how long you have spent on this bullshit. It remains complete bullshit, AND you have provided not a shred of evidence for why or how it could be true. All you YouTube insane people are all the same. "Oh, oh, pay attention to ME. Look I have discovered something EVERYONE else on the fucking planet seems to have missed ... except ME". Yes indeed. You're special. Very very special.

There is no "absolute boundary" between life and non-life. It's all chemical reactions. Thus your definitional dualism is nonsense. Some complex chemical processes result in, (and as far as we know ONLY molecular processes) result in cognition/cnsciousness. If you're trying to say there is no qualitative difference between electrons in orbit around a nucleus, and a thinking being, then your point is moot. Other than that, attempting to create a definitional boundary between consciousness and non-consciousness is irrelevant and meaningless. You clearly have not thought out the consequences of you unsupported assertions.

Yep.
You die when your central nervous system stops working.
No soul. No consciousness. No bullshit.
End of story.
Nothing else to discuss.

Sooo guys,
Last time I was on I saw our new trolls post and rejoiced. That was early yesterday. Now we're 13 pages in and I haven't had a go of him yet!

Troll Boy.
Some basics.
When you make a claim pertaining to reality such as consciousness exists after death. This is a scientific claim. You do not get to make a scientific claim then demand we treat it as 'philosophy' and dodge the burden of proof.

You don't get a pass by simply stating 'think about it', telling us 'what atheists believe' or simply implying we mustn't be as clever as you because we don't 'understand'. Heh.
This is akin to the emperors new clothes. I personally understand a thing called reality.

You are not an atheist. If you are 'spiritual' and believe in a 'higher power', you are at a push an agnostic theist. You seem deliberately vague in your posts or you are just mushy in your thinking. You also carry an arrogant undertone, your subtext implies that any of us who don't subscribe to, or dare to question your impressive self imposed mental gymnastics just aren't bright enough to understand. You are a fucking bell end mate.

You asked earlier in the thread where you have not been reasonable or logical.
The answer to that is your whole contribution to the thread so far starting with post one. I say this because you have avoided straight answers to questions posed directly to you or ignored them entirely and you have provided not one jot of evidence for any of your claims. Again, whether you are switched on enough to realise you have made a scientific claim or not isn't something I feel concerned about, I think your obtuse misuse of science and philosophy is deliberate and necessary from your point of view for the obvious shell game you are playing but like I say, you have made extraordinary claims, I require extraordinary evidence.

I expect from what I have seen on this thread that your response will be along the lines of:-

Don't be offensive, I thought you atheists would be cleverer! I think this science thing but you can't have any evidence because when you ask for that I want it to be philosophy because WOO WOO! ... CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!

This will be tedious, so instead of bothering with my actual post, for your delectation I have prepared you a delicious word salad that you may prefer to respond to, as a nice salad seems to be your thing:-
The cosmos is infinite therefore everything exists including my terminal and immortal consciousness both simultaneously and separately as well as in my percieved universe where all of my statements are true and untrue! Wow man, heavy, listen to the colours. ... You can't argue with any of that by the way. It's philosophy.